The Popcorn Digest
Looking at how movies and TV shows reveal information about how we communicate
Welcome and I hope you all are having a great day! Whether it is the war in Ukraine, the continued fall-out from the COVID-19 pandemic, or any number of other things that are making life difficult for you, I hope this can help give you a temporary escape. As we always do in this weekly newsletter, we will be analyzing movies and TV shows and looking at how they can reveal important lessons about the world around us.
So today, we are going to talk about Communication Accommodation Theory (often refereed to as CAT) and how it is prevalent in the media that we consume. I picked this as the topic for today because it is something that too often gets overlooked despite being a vital part of the communication process. In fact, I could pretty confidently wager that every readers of this newsletter has done some form of speech accommodation within the last couple of days (with much of that accommodation happening without us even knowing). So, sit back, grab some popcorn, and let’s have a discussion about CAT.
Accommodating the Theory
Before we get to places where we can see this in everyday movies and TV shows, let’s first look at what the theory is.
In its most basic terms, Communication Accommodation Theory is the idea that people vary how they speak based on a variety of different factors. The theory, which was originally created by Howard Giles and Cindy Gallois, focuses on how people modify their speech depending on context.
The theory which originally started as Speech Accommodation Theory (later changing to include nonverbal behaviors that affect communication), is all about the act of accommodating or changing speech. CAT works upon the belief that people will adjust their speech to fit the conversation they are having and attempt to build relationships with others around them.
This accommodation can take place in one of three forms: convergence, divergence, or maintenance. So, starting with convergence, let’s turn to two experts on the topic: Howard Giles and Tania Ogay (2007). In their paper they wanted to look at the conditions that caused people to be more accommodating in their communication. Their main finding was that people change their speech “in such a way as to become more similar” to the person they are speaking with. But why would someone feel the need to try to become more similar to who they are speaking with? The answer, is to create a relationship with the person they are speaking with. Since the goal is to make their speech more easily understood, convergence often takes the form of a person changing their speed or word choice. A fun side note, convergence is often done out of some form of attraction (whether platonic or romantic) and is typically used as a strategy to make that person like you.
But what about when you don’t want to form a relationship? Giles and Ogay (2007) have an explanation for that too. Instead of convergence, divergence on the other hand “leads to an accentuation of speech and nonverbal differences between self and the other.” In more practical terms it means that a person is attempting to put distance between themself and another person. I’m sure we have all been through a situation where there is someone that keeps bugging you that you simply have no interest in talking with. Divergent communication is how you would get that person to leave you alone.
Now for some people, switching between convergence and divergence is too much of a headache, so they prefer to simply be themselves. Giles and Ogay (2007) would then describe this person as using the style of maintenance. This means that instead of accommodating, a person “persists in his or her original style, regardless of the communication behavior” of the person they are speaking with. It simply means that the person stays themself no matter who they are speaking with.
Does it stack up?
Just like any good theory there are some strengths and weaknesses to consider before subscribing to CAT. Because this is meant to be a light-hearted journal for your enjoyment, let’s start with the positives.
For starters, CAT has the ability to be used in a WIDE variety of contexts.
It has been applied to communication between different social groups (cultures, generations, genders, abilities) and within and between organizations, in face-to-face interactions, as well as through different media (radio, telephone, e-mail, etc.), in different countries, and by researchers of diverse cultural and language backgrounds — Cindy Gallois, Tania Ogay, and Howard Giles (2005)
Now I know that is a mouthful, but put simply this shows that CAT is something that goes beyond a specific culture, country, or method of communication. CAT has the ability to be applied almost universally which means it has to be doing at least something right.
In addition, to being able to be applied to a large variety of situations, CAT also allows for a lot of benefits to the person who is using it. Research from Gabrielle Byrd, Yan Zhang, and Angela Gist-Mackey (2019) in their paper about interaction with groups other than our own has been able to shine a light on these benefits. These benefits include:
- CAT Communication, usually through convergence, has the ability to “minimizes the social distance” or reduce barriers between two different groups.
- This breaking of barriers can also lead to enhancing “relational solidarity between speakers” which allows for people of different backgrounds to more easily become close.
- Both of these factors can then lead to a decrease in “uncertainty and anxiety in intergroup encounters,” meaning CAT had the ability to create long-lasting relationships and break down divisions between people.
But what’s the catch? Although CAT has the ability to do a lot of good, it is not without its flaws. Angie Williams (1999) in her paper on miscommunication does a good job of highlighting the reason that CAT is not an airtight theory. The problem with CAT is not in the theory itself, it is the people who use it.
Since people are not perfect, there is often the ability for miscommunication to occur. This can lead a person to “undershoot or overshoot” the accommodation a person needs. Although this is not usually done with malice, this incorrect accommodation can happen in ways that are detrimental to the situation and can cause the person to seem rude for not properly accommodating the person they are speaking with.
So, instead of helping to create relationships and break down barriers, it can often have the opposite effect. The potential for miscommunication then pokes holes into the idea that CAT is applicable in all contexts like we talked about earlier.
No matter if you believe in the theory of not, CAT is a useful principle that is present in many of the movies and TV shows that you watch. So, even if you believe that it is not very applicable to the real world, Hollywood magic really helps to bring the theory to life.
But how does the relate to movies?
I can hear your comments already, “why did you just give me a lecture about some theoretical concept? I’m here to talk about movies.” I hear you and thank you for sticking with me, because I promise it will all be worth it.
For our first example I figured I’d start with the 2004 classic: Mean Girls
Oh, Regina George how backhanded you can be. Even though Regina George is the opposite of a role model, she does serve as a great example of effectively using convergence and divergence. When talking with Lea Edwards, Regina first starts off by complementing her skirt, seemingly trying to form a relationship with Lea. This is a great example of convergence because she is adapting her speech to compliment Lea and fit within Lea’s perception of her own skirt (especially considering Regina actually has a bit of a problem with her skirt).
Then, immediately after Lea left ear shot, Regina talks about how “that is the ugliest effing skirt” she had ever seen. This shift in her perspective on the skirt also causes a shift in the part of CAT she is using. Now, instead of forming a relationship by complementing Lea, she is using divergence in an attempt to distance herself from Lea in a way that makes her more appealing to Cady Heron. This helps to demonstrate that the situation really is key for determining when to use convergence and divergence (heck — it could even be the same situation just with different people like in this case). So, while Regina George is undoubtedly a master of fashion, she also great at using convergence and divergence.
Although Regina is good at adapting her speech, no one is able to compare with Aaron Burr from the 2015 Broadway hit: Hamilton
In the song Aaron Burr, Sir the titular character establishes himself as the master of convergence. His advice to Alexander Hamilton to “talk less” and “smile more” illustrates his focus on saying whatever it takes to make sure his goal (namely of becoming president) is accomplished. Coupled with his advice to “don’t let them know what you’re against or what you’re for” reinforces his hope of gaining many of the benefits of CAT that we talked about previously. Whether hoping to garner relational solidarity (by adapting to the perceptions of whoever he is speaking with) or increase the potential for future contact with members of either side of the war effort, Aaron Burr is masterfully attempting to play both sides and gain allies.
On the other hand, someone like Alexander Hamilton would likely critique him for incorrect accommodation. Since Burr is simply saying what he thinks another person would want to hear — instead of what he actually believes — it could lead him to over or under accommodate and potentially do more harm than good in the future.
Although accommodation can be helpful, someone should tell Lady Danbury in Season 2 Episode 1of Netflix’s critically acclaimed show Bridgerton to avoid overaccommodating.
While I can’t show the clip because of Netflix’s copyright on the material, it was too good of an example for me to not share. You can find the dialogue for it in the picture below:
Although Lady Danbury is attempting to be helpful to Kate and Edwina Sharma by trying to help Edwina with her marriage prospects, Lady Danbury commits the cardinal sin of CAT: using incorrect discourse management (which is a fancy way of saying misinterpreting a person’s communication needs). Because Kate and Edwina are from India, Lady Danbury assumes that Edwina has no dance, music or French training.
That is just a tad inaccurate. Edwina’s fluency in French and large amounts of experience with both dance and music shows Lady Danbury made an incorrect assumption. Although not good for Lady Danbury, it is a perfect example for me and really shows that one lady’s trash is my treasure. This is the perfect example of why it is vital to avoid stereotyping and other assumptions when accommodating. While Lady Danbury is trying to help and build relationships, it backfires and makes her seem like she was trying to be rude.
Now what are you going to do about it?
Now is about the time that if I was reading this I’d be thinking “how do I avoid becoming Lady Danbury” and the answer is much simpler than you think. Here are few quick DO’s and DON’Ts to make sure you are using CAT how it meant to be used.
- DO reflect on how you are using CAT in your everyday life. Now that you know the theory, make sure you are questioning how you have been unknowingly using it in your interactions. Take a closer look at the convergence strategies you are using to get closer with your friends or the divergence strategy you used to break up with your last significant other, and start to question how you can put this new knowledge to good use.
- DON’T stereotype in your accommodation. Learn from Lady Danbury and make sure if you are doing some form of accommodation make sure it is justified. Even just asking someone if they need the accommodation you were thinking of giving them can go a long way.
- DO be accommodating. If someone is struggling with what you are saying help them! Whether it is the result of a language barrier, a difference in knowledge, or any other circumstances, do your best to use discourse management strategies to make sure you are properly meeting the needs of the person you are speaking with.
- DON’T be afraid to mess up. I know we talked about a lot about preventing miscommunication and overaccommodation, but at the end of the day it is sometimes unavoidable. Just do you best and remember you are only human!
- DO tell your friends. I promise this is much more than a shameless plug. If everyone spent some time learning about CAT we could all learn to have better accommodation practices.
What to Watch Next
Before I finish up I wanted to let you all know of something that really ruffled my feathers. Although movie rankings are subjective, sometimes there are right and wrong answers and Collider found the wrong way to rank Quentin Tarantino movies. So. I now present you with the new and improved ranking of all ten of his wonderful movies:
10. Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood
9. Jackie Brown
8. Kill Bill Vol. 2
7. The Hateful Eight
6. Death Proof
5. Reservoir Dogs
4. Kill Bill Vol. 1
3. Inglourious Basterds
2. Pulp Fiction (and might I add as a very close second)
1. Django Unchained
Now that we have that corrected I hope you all spend some time watching the movies for yourself (except for Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood because I would consider it his one flop).
Ending on a Strong Note
I hope you all enjoyed our discussion of Communication Accommodation Theory and I hope to see you all again next week. This is a true passion of mine and the fact that you spent the time to make it to the very end means the world to me. With that I hope you have a great week and are able to continue surviving the crazy times we live in. Until then I’ll leave behind the articles I referenced in case you want to do some more reading about CAT!
[1]: Byrd, G. A., Zhang, Y. B., & Gist-Mackey, A. N. (2019). Interability contact and the reduction of interability Prejudice: Communication accommodation, intergroup anxiety, and relational solidarity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(4), 441–458. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261927X19865578
[2]: Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.) Theorizing about intercultural communication. (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doc.rero.ch/record/306552/files/2005_galloisogaygiles_communicationaccommodationtheory.pdf
[3]: Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication : Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doc.rero.ch/record/306556/files/2007_gilesogay_cat.pdf
[4]: Goldberg, M. (2021). Quentin Tarantino movies ranked from worst to best. Collider. https://collider.com/quentin-tarantino-movies-ranked/
[5]: Williams, A. (1999), Communication Accommodation Theory and miscommunication: issues of awareness and communication dilemmas. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9: 151–165. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1999.tb00169.x
